If one takes a state the size of California one can hardly be accused of cherry picking, certainly of one takes all of New England to add to California one can hardly be accused of cherry picking. Now add New Jersey. Finally, add New York.
The problem from your point of view in talking about swing states is that there are ever fewer of them as more and more states move into the blue column because of demographics.
As to the idea that there is a mushy middle, roughly 1/3, which decides elections and that this has ever been so and ever will be so deserves tight scrutiny. First, you refer to our history going back to the Civil War. I reply that the Irish got off the boats during the Civil War and turned the northern coastal cities Democrat and tended to keep them that way until the next demographic wave, Jews and Italians for the most part, confirmed the Democrat hold on cities. Finally, the demographic wave of African-Americans in World War I and especially in World War II and thereafter nailed the voting booth door shut to Republicans. The lock on those northern cities has occasionally been picked but the trend is indisputable and durable. There is no mushy middle in Massachusetts, California, Rhode Island, Maryland etc. These states will occasionally behave eccentrically as Maryland recently did but the pattern holds.
The idea that there will always be a cyclical movement back and forth between Republicans and Democrats has some validity by the nature of our federal system. Where you have a winner take all situation, as you do in the American elections, third parties are discouraged as one of the two parties will move to absorb a burgeoning rival. So that has tended over the centuries to keep America a two-party system as opposed to the experience in Europe with parliamentary democracies. However, a two-party system simply breaks down if the demographics compel it as it has so many times in America. We are now seeing the winner take all election statewide in many American states dominated by the cities. This is purely a demographic result. It may change but there is nothing before us to suggest that it will.
There is, however, plenty of serious data which I sent to you describing the change in the racial makeup of this country by 2050. That can be dismissed with conclusionary language, but I don't find that persuasive.
Sorry but it is cherry picking. You went for a state that was set in their ways, a liberal bastion for a very long time. If the country followed CA then we’d get one GOP president every 20 years. Since that’s not the case clearly America doesn’t follow CA and pointing to CA is cherry picking. And yes, adding New England is still cherry picking, and adding New York doesn’t change it. Until you add a swing state you’re cherry picking, and of course you won’t add a swing state because their very existence proves you wrong.
No, the number of swing states stays pretty much the same. Some states get added, some get subtracted, Ohio has been one since the 1880s, but the core concept remains. They aren’t swinging blue, the swings are going to go strong for the GOP candidate in 2 years. Put money on it.
If the voting door got shut for the GOP after WWII then why have we won the presidency more times than they have since then? If the GOP door is swung shut then why do we control more House seats, more Senate seats, and more Governorships than close to 100 years? The fact is the demographic theory of voting patterns fails miserably when compared to actual election results.
No there’s a mushy middle in MA, CA, RI, etc. Look at the congressional district maps. Even in states that are hardcore to one side or the other have the zones that aren’t. I live in hard right AZ, but I live in the democrat city of hard right AZ, though thanks to the mushy middle it looks like we just might have our first heterosexual GOP House rep in over 30 years.
There is no serious data that support the “demographic bomb” theory. The fact is how races vote cycle. Yes these days all blacks vote dem, but the numbers are sliding, and not that long ago they all voted GOP. The actual serious data is the election results, and they support the mushy middle idea, there’s a large quantity of unaligned people, following the wind, and the wind constantly shifts back and forth.
Not my problem if you don’t find it persuasive. I’ll take over 100 years of election results over any “projections” you’ve got. The results are predictable and consistent whether or not you’re persuaded.